State Of Washington v. Pablo Santos-santiago
74421-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Pablo Santos Santiago was convicted of multiple child-molestation offenses against two minors who lived with him; convictions included two counts of first-degree child molestation and one count of second-degree child molestation.
- No medical examinations were performed on the victims; the State nonetheless presented expert testimony from Joanne Mettler, a sexual-assault nurse practitioner, about typical "normal" exam findings and causes of painful urination after assault.
- The trial court admitted Mettler’s testimony over defense objections; the jury convicted and the court imposed prison terms and extensive lifetime and 36-month community custody conditions.
- On appeal, Santos Santiago challenged (1) the admissibility and prejudicial nature of the expert testimony and (2) several community custody conditions as beyond the court’s authority or unconstitutionally vague.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but ordered remand to strike or modify several community custody conditions that were not crime-related or were vague.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony (Mettler) | Testimony was relevant to explain lack of medical findings after assault | Testimony speculative and implied victims' credibility/guilt | Admission not an abuse of discretion: testimony based on experience, relevant context, did not opine on guilt or credibility |
| Curfew community condition | State defended condition as appropriate supervision tool | Santos Santiago: curfew not crime-related | Stricken — State conceded and court held curfew was not crime-related |
| Alcohol prohibition wording ("use" vs "consume") | State relied on crime-related authority and general supervision power | Santos Santiago: "use" is broader than statutory "consume" and not crime-related | "Use" portion stricken — exceeds trial court authority and is not crime-related; "consume" could be authorized under later statutes but not here |
| "Places where minors congregate" phrasing ("and or any places") | State partially conceded flaw | Santos Santiago: phrase is vague and allows arbitrary enforcement | Phrase "and or any places" stricken as unconstitutionally vague; limiting language to "parks/playgrounds/schools where minors congregate" remains valid |
| Prohibition on sex-related businesses and sexually explicit material | State: such prohibitions permissible for sex offenders | Santos Santiago: no evidence his offenses were related to such businesses/materials | Stricken — no evidence tying his criminal conduct to sex businesses or explicit materials, so conditions not crime-related |
| Requirement to notify CCO/treatment provider of "dating relationship" | State: term is sufficiently definite | Santos Santiago: term is vague (cites Reeves) | Upheld — "dating relationship" is sufficiently ascertainable and not unconstitutionally vague |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918 (state expert testimony about normal exams particularly relevant to reconcile allegations and lack of medical evidence)
- State v. Cheatham, 150 Wn.2d 626 (ER 702 helpfulness standard for expert testimony)
- State v. Maule, 35 Wn. App. 287 (expert identification of offender group can unfairly prejudice defendant)
- State v. Black, 109 Wn.2d 336 (rape trauma syndrome testimony may imply victim credibility and unfairly prejudice defendant)
- State v. Irwin, 191 Wn. App. 644 (standards for crime-related community custody conditions and vagueness analysis)
- State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739 (constitutional vagueness principles applied to supervisory conditions)
- State v. Magana, 197 Wn. App. 189 (discussion whether sex-offense conviction alone justifies restrictions on access to sex-related businesses and materials)